As I see it, there are five possible global climate temperature
scenarios for the next five years. Apart from the unexpected that is!
- Unambiguous warming.
- Ambiguous warming.
- No change.
- Ambiguous cooling.
- Unambiguous cooling.
Scenarios 2, 3 and 4 are where various misguided enthusiasts claim
we are at the moment. Climate science is too inexact in its definitions and too
saturated with political exigencies for a neutral observer to distinguish
between them. Not that there are any neutral observers in this debate.
Even so, what may we say about the coming five years with
some degree of confidence? Obviously we have to guess, but if we are able to
get over the idea that this has much to do with science, then we may get
somewhere.
Commonly observed traits of human behaviour are what guide
us through the climate debate which in my view is mostly driven by global
political ambitions, middle class anxieties and an undue respect for authority.
Even so, it is surely possible to get away from the failures of climate science
and take a look at human nature.
Scenarios 1 and 2 should ensure the political and
intellectual survival of mainstream pro-AGW climate narratives. The other
three, namely 3, 4 and 5 will obviously cause increasingly severe problems for
the mainstream narrative.
If we assume that all five narratives are equally probable, and
we have no science to tell us otherwise, then there is a 60% chance that the
mainstream pro-AGW narrative may fail very badly indeed. It depends of the
resilience of the narrative which is undoubtedly powerful for both political
and emotional reasons.
On the other hand, there is a 40% chance that it will
succeed politically and intellectually, at least for that five year period.
Not that these percentages should be taken too seriously,
but we have to make sense of climate change somehow and the mainstream science
isn’t getting us anywhere. Most of it is far too speculative as a basis for
energy policies which one way or another will end up being driven by the real
world.
All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.
2 comments:
The devil is always in the details. What is the reasoning that leads to equal probabilities? This seems to be the default for humans, even though is is almost always incorrect.
Paddington - there is no reasoning leading to equal probabilities, but maybe we know how many scenarios there are politically.
Post a Comment